Philosophical Questions: Marriage
Mar. 21st, 2026 12:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithPeople have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.
Does marriage as an institution need to be updated or is it fine how it is?
Marriage exists in various forms across cultures around the world, and has existed in many more forms through time. Clearly people find it useful.
However, both marriage and birth rates are dropping in almost all countries. Some are outright plummeting. This suggests that most societies have a version of marriage that is not a great fit for people's current needs, so they are not utilizing that life choice as much.
Thus an update might be helpful. Personally, I would recommend studying cultures that offered multiple options for marriage so that people could choose one that best fit their plans and needs. Options can solve a lot of problems.
Does marriage as an institution need to be updated or is it fine how it is?
Marriage exists in various forms across cultures around the world, and has existed in many more forms through time. Clearly people find it useful.
However, both marriage and birth rates are dropping in almost all countries. Some are outright plummeting. This suggests that most societies have a version of marriage that is not a great fit for people's current needs, so they are not utilizing that life choice as much.
Thus an update might be helpful. Personally, I would recommend studying cultures that offered multiple options for marriage so that people could choose one that best fit their plans and needs. Options can solve a lot of problems.
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-21 08:42 am (UTC)FWIW, Chris and I were married in a reformed Druid ceremony by mandelbear. It clearly worked, lasting over 24 years.
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-21 09:41 am (UTC)It works for us. We've been together fo 34 yearx and married for 20 of those.
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-21 09:43 am (UTC)Well, my wife and I believe that marriage is sometimes convenient. Most specifically, we decided to formalize our relationship with marriage because of practical reasons: what if one of us is sick in the hospital our only next of kin is one of our parents, someone who does not understand our polyamorous relationships and someone in the polycule is not allowed to visit the sick person because of dumb 'family only' reasons? So we decided to become a family legally. I'm currently not seeing anyone else romantically, but I have other play partners who I would be really saddened not to say goodbye to if I happened to be dying in the hospital, people who my mother would not even consider informing of my state. So now, my wife is legally my next of kin and thus, the one to make those decisions if the time ever comes.
We've been together for 8 years and our main reason not to get married before was "what if you fall in love with someone else and you want to have a relationship with both of us but marriage makes it difficult?" and we came to the conclusion that in the end marriage as it is right now is only useful/convenient for legal reasons more than anything else. It would be amazing if people could make marriage-like contracts (or marriage itself idc) between more people and that it wouldn't be a fucking big deal (this is a reason I loved Two Husband One Wife. It posed the very interesting question of three people getting married in a country where it's not legal. But it starts with a lesbian marriage (something that's also illegal in that country) so it makes you really think about what marriage really even is. Highly recommended.)
We also decided to get married at this moment as a 'fuck you' to our current government (that's very likely to do something that will affect gay marriage in my country considering his political views)
anyway, idk where I'm going with this, but my point is: if you want to do marriage, sit down and TALK to your partner(s) about it, specifically, talk about what you want it to mean for YOU and fuck what other people think about it. Marriage can be a good tool, but it's also an institution that does not fit many ways to live life, so it's important to be clear about what you want and to always, always remember that divorce exists and it's just a tool just like marriage can be.
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-21 11:46 am (UTC)I say bring back Brehon marriages. Contracts to marry for a fixed term, or to raise children, or as a trial run.. Marriages open to any combination of genders, with no limits on the number of partners. Marriages with a 'no fault' termination clause in their contract that can be dissolved by mutual agreement.
All and every variation should be legally valid and treated equally in the eyes of the law. With the same rights and everything.
The fundy Christians can go F**k themselves, if they can't agree.
Yes ...
Date: 2026-03-21 04:52 pm (UTC)>>The fundy Christians can go F**k themselves, if they can't agree.<<
The problem they're having is rather a lack of that though, isn't it? Seems a lot of folks, especially women, don't care for the deal they offer and now have better alternatives.
Which part?
Date: 2026-03-21 04:03 pm (UTC)- well there are any number of different ones, just pick one that suits?
Update the legal rights and responsibilities given unto married people?
- yes of course! As with all law and rights, continuos updates is the only safe way to keep the structure balanced.
Update the deep commitment between two or more? (because no matter how many in the rite, it also influences children -living or unborn-, families and close friends)
- this is cultural (are oaths and promises believed in and held to?), so hard to do much about at large. Each person has to make their own.
Re: Which part?
Date: 2026-03-21 04:05 pm (UTC)- Flavia (bv97045)
Busy, Busy
Date: 2026-03-21 06:15 pm (UTC)Other key issues are that disability services are cut as soon as one marries, and next of kin structures are currently an absolute mess to update outside of marriage.
Re: Busy, Busy
Date: 2026-03-21 06:21 pm (UTC)- Flavia
Re: Busy, Busy
Date: 2026-03-21 06:22 pm (UTC)Re: Busy, Busy
Date: 2026-03-22 03:30 am (UTC)That is the government's argument why it should be involved in people's private lives -- that it needs to know who is doing big things like buying a house together.
>>Both should also be much less expensive, as well as any name-change option. (In this part of the USA, legally changing one's name, whether it be first, last, or full, is around $600 per application!)<<
Agreed.
>>Other key issues are that disability services are cut as soon as one marries,<<
Yeah, that's just abusive.
>> and next of kin structures are currently an absolute mess to update outside of marriage.<<
True. It has long been an issue for queerfolk, who often have alarming reasons why their birth family is not to be trusted.
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-21 06:27 pm (UTC)It has been a kind of package deal, which got the participants social adulthood, legitimate sex with a more-or-less peer, a household team covering both sides of the basic division of labor (male and female worker), children and a more-or-less stable environment to rear them, companionship and partnership. Society got a new generation of workers, and calmed-down young men with a stake in the future.
At this point, the various personal benefits can be had à la carte, and are in some cases actively unwanted. Marriages are less common, and often don't produce any new generation, leaving society somewhat SOL.
But people still frequently want to live in a stable relationship with one (or more) partners, sharing household responsibilities, friendship, mutual support and, often, sex. Some still want a stable long term relationship in which to embark upon the adventure of parenthood.
For some of those people, a legal marriage works for this purpose, in spite of the rather high risk of divorce. They toss out the parts of it they don't find useful, and keep what they do.
Others, want multiple partners, wrong-gender partners, partnership without sex, or a lack of some of the legal add-ons concerning e.g. inheritance or taxes. They are either campaigning to change the law (successfully in the case of those seeking wrong-gender partners), doing without it, or both.
Net result: the institution has changed in my life time, and is continuing to change, whether we want it or not.
Thoughts
Date: 2026-03-21 09:40 pm (UTC)In the past it has been used for many things:
* Originally, it was often men trading affection for sex and women trading sex for affection.
* Other times it was about a man protecting a woman, and a woman taking care of a man.
* Making business arrangements, like a like a weaver marrying a sheep farmer.
* Making political alliances or unifying countries, like the prince with a port city marrying the princess with a mountain mine.
* Romance came into the picture much later.
All of these, and other things, are fine as long as all participants are on the same page. Man/woman has been the leading pattern, but far from the only one.
And there are some really fucked up examples too.
>>At this point, the various personal benefits can be had à la carte, and are in some cases actively unwanted. Marriages are less common, and often don't produce any new generation, leaving society somewhat SOL.<<
That's true.
>>But people still frequently want to live in a stable relationship with one (or more) partners, sharing household responsibilities, friendship, mutual support and, often, sex. Some still want a stable long term relationship in which to embark upon the adventure of parenthood.<<
That's a big issue. The government's only valid reason to butt into people's private choices is that it needs to know who is moving through life together as a unit for purposes like paying taxes, buying houses, raising children -- the big official stuff. If it needs to know this for heterosexual couples, then it needs to know this for homosexual couples, polyfamilies, acefolk who join up, etc. If it does not need to know this for relationships other than man/woman, then it does not need to know for man/woman relationships either.
My favored solution would be to make the legal contract only for determining legal rights, and people could have a religious ceremony if they wished which might convey rights in their faith but not legally.
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-21 11:14 pm (UTC)Yes ...
Date: 2026-03-22 03:01 am (UTC)notes on marriage
Date: 2026-03-22 06:35 am (UTC)My GF and I have been discussing marriage simply for economic reasons, if one of us dies the other is entitled to federal support benefits. That's the only difference between being married or not when you don't live together and don't have children.
Canada is starting to allow more than two parents on birth certificates - it's changing slowly, province by province, but that's also how same-sex marriage happened so I expect it will be country-wide eventually.
When I was in a triad that was splitting up the other two partners were legally married and the lawyer strongly suggested I be explicitly named in the settlement. Apparently I could have sued for alimony even though I wasn't part of the legal marriage. (I wouldn't have, but I still find that pretty wild.)